Why Do So Many Professors Hate America?

Culture Watch

Mr. Pipes is the director of the Middle East Forum. His website address is http://www.danielpipes.org.

Americans broadly agree on two facts about the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq: its brutality and the danger it poses to themselves, especially the danger of nuclear attack. Disagreement arises primarily over what to do: Take out the regime now? Give Baghdad another chance? Follow the United Nations' lead?

Visit an American university, however, and you'll often enter a topsy-turvy world in which professors consider the United States (not Iraq) the problem and oil (not nukes) the issue.

Here's a typical sampling of opinion:

Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and far-left luminary, insists that President Bush and his advisers oppose Saddam not because of his many crimes or his reach for nuclear weapons. "We all know . . . what they're aiming at," Chomsky said in a recent interview, "Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world."

Jim Rego, visiting assistant professor of chemistry at Swarthmore College, stated at a panel discussion that, even after Sept. 11, the U.S. government is merely manufacturing another enemy "to have an identity." Rego explained his thinking with an elegance characteristic of the Left: "I think we've run out of people's butts to kick and that we essentially want to keep the butt-kicking going."

Eric Foner, professor of nineteenth-century American history at Columbia University, states that a preemptive war against Iraq "takes us back to the notion of the rule of the jungle" and deems this "exactly the same argument" the Japanese used to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Glenda Gilmore, an assistant professor of history of the American South at Yale University, tells her school paper that confrontation with Iraq represents a plot to expand American power. It is nothing less, she asserts, than "the first step in Bush's plan to transform our country into an aggressor nation that cannot tolerate opposition." She concludes by quoting the wisdom of a cartoon character: "We have met the enemy, and it is us."

Mazin Qumsiyeh, associate professor of genetics at Yale University and co-founder of "Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition," wrote in a Connecticut newspaper that "if Saddam Hussein is a dictator, [Washington] created him." He concludes that a U.S. war against Iraq would be just a diversion created by "Israeli apologists and [U.S.] government officials" who share a "tribal affiliation" (in other words, are Jewish). The only purpose of war would be to provide cover for Israel to commit what he calls "even higher atrocities" against Palestinians by removing them from the West Bank and Gaza.

Tom Nagy, associate professor of business at George Washington University, proudly informed his university newspaper about providing aid to the Saddam regime against the United States during a recent (illegal) trip to Iraq. Specifically, he offered "estimates of the number of civilians needed to act as a human shield to protect infrastructure and buildings for Iraqi citizens."

These views are unfortunately routine for the U.S. academy, which for some decades has been the major American institution most alienated from the rest of the country. As a 1978 bestseller memorably put it, Harvard Hates America.

Of course, professors have every right to express their opinions, however cranky and mistaken. Yet the relentless opposition to their own government raises some questions:

Why do American academics so often despise their own country while finding excuses for repressive and dangerous regimes?

Why have university specialists proven so inept at understanding the great contemporary issues of war and peace, starting with Vietnam, then the Cold War, the Kuwait war and now the War on Terror?

Why do professors of linguistics, chemistry, American history, genetics and business present themselves in public as authorities on the Middle East?

What is the long-term effect of an extremist, intolerant and anti-American environment on university students?

The time has come for adult supervision of the faculty and administrators at many American campuses. Especially as we are at war, the goal must be for universities to resume their civic responsibilities.

This can be achieved if outsiders (alumni, state legislators, non-university specialists, parents of students and others) take steps to create a politically balanced atmosphere, critique failed scholarship, establish standards for media statements by faculty and broaden the range of campus discourse.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jose Fyodor Kerouako - 11/26/2004

Here Here Mike Harris... a toast and cheer. I cannot say I am one of the elite, as a matter of fact I am very poor and play destitute for my friends. As a minimalist in America, I try my hardest to keep out of the reach of television screens and billboards. As a poor but honest citizen of this great country, I work hard and earned my AA, continued education until the present administration made it very difficult to keep my financial aid. But, have no fear, us slightly more educated, recently departured from colleges all around the U.S. and will be making far smarter foot soldiers if we chose to take the bait. wink-wink poke-poke... Mr. Bill Heuisler, you are a scary man. You should have your own show after Bill O'Reilly and tell everyone how they are wrong, but I would challenge you to give Chomsky a whole hour to retort.
I can't say much. The truth is that in expressing my disappointment in this country after the elections (not that Kerry would have done a better job, or stopped killing human beings in my name) has resulted in my being called a "communist" or a "socialist". I can't say i'm the person to educate the many, but I'm afraid the definition of "communism" as well as the definition of "liberal" and even the term "democracy" is not understood by the majority of Americans. Like many ideas, facts and priorities in this country, yes the U.S.A, have been distorted. If we as a people are to notice these distortions happening we are to look the other way because as long as it is being done "for us", well, we should shut up about it. Don't look behind the green curtain, donnot pay any attention to man handling the smoke and the mirrors. Alright well, although I have no better place to go, I'd like Professor Chomsky to let me know where I can return the "emerald green glasses" and file my complaint.
I wonder how many of you have every been actually a part of the labor force in this country... hmmmmmmmmmmm...

t bailey - 11/23/2003

Case in point, your "Answer" "avoid(ed) the point entirely". Jaelle asked, "writers like Pipes and Emerson get on mainstream, corporate television and radio CONSTANTLY", and why people like Chomsky never are on corporate televison.

You avoided the question entirely by rehashing the "bleeding liberal" view held on the right. That somehow there is something wrong about caring about victim. Which is ironic because conservatives often claim to be very religious. Doesn't the Bible teach to try and understand and help those who are vicitims?

And now that you brought it up, What is wrong with identifying with the victims? I think your arguement that those on the left believe that those victims "can do no wrong" is very simplistic and incorrect.

The reality is that those professors on the left tend to have a more mature and complex world view than simplistic and often devotely religious people on the right who have a very naive, black-and-white view of the world.

"Hence, they side with Iraq, despite the glaring record on human rights and threat to their own country."

I personally never "sided" with Iraqi president Sadam Hussien, and I feel that most of those on the left did not either.

Again, this is a very simplistic view of a complex issue. Those on the left are simply saying that American's foreign policy is a humanitarian failure, replete with incredible hypocracy.

We helped create Sadam Hussien and Al-Quada. Instead of using simplistic good-vs-evil views of the world, I see those on the left looking at the history of these regimes, and questioning how effective our foriegn policy really is, and suggesting that if we really are going to be the "beacon of freedom" that our foreign policy must change.

"Hence, they side with Iraq, despite ...threat to their own country"

Ah, your views are a bit dated.

7 months in Iraq and it is apprent there are no weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunatly, like most people, when presented with a fact that threatens your world view, you will simply dismiss this uncomfortable fact and somehow justify our invasion some other way. SO simplistic, and unfortunatly SO typical.

Mike Harris - 7/21/2003

Gus, they have to hate America don't they? After all they don't agree with the author of that silly article who is wise all knowing and omnipotent, so by definition they deserve to be called names, the only form of "argument" these folks seem to understand. The article starts out:

" Americans broadly agree on two facts about the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq: its brutality
and the danger it poses to themselves, especially the danger of nuclear attack. Disagreement
arises primarily over what to do: Take out the regime now? Give Baghdad another chance?
Follow the United Nations' lead? "

Funny how these people that are utterly certain that they're right get so many things wrong. We now know perfectly well that Hussein was *not* a danger to his neighbors, certainly not America and that the probability of a nuclear attack from Iraq was exactly zero. Not that this should have been a surprise to anyone. There was no evidence at all that Iraqi WMD existed, and plenty that it did not. It just wasn't covered in the main stream American press which seems to believe that it is an arm of the Bush administration. Scott Ritter, Republican ex-marine and former UNSCOM inspector explained quite clearly that all such WMD was destroyed in 1991 and could not have been replaced without the intelligence community being well aware of it. Of course he received short shrift in the media in this country and consequently most Americans, as usual, were completely ignorant of the facts regarding Iraqi WMD.

So if "Americans broadly agreed" that WMD, much less nuclear weapons that threatened America existed in Iraq it is because they have become sheep like and ignorant, which also makes them compliant to an administration that has the interests of a select few big contributors at heart at the expense of everyone else. Why is that? Perhaps its because of loud mouth gas bags such as the author of the original article who have become legion in this corporate age.

If Americans don't wake up soon and start looking at the actual problems we have foisted on the world, rather than blaming the messengers of conscience, like college professors who are probably the brightest and best edcuated people in this society, we may soon face a disaster that makes 9/11 look like a walk in the park.

Mike Harris - 7/21/2003

I love the way all the good responses to Heuisler ideological rantings appear to have been deleted, though his self serving rhetoric in response have not. Very typical I'm afraid of the folks who are so intimidated by anyone who doesn't bow down and kiss an American flag every time they speak of it. These folks love freedom, but hate free speech. They're patriotic but mostly think that means jingoistic demagoguery. They're big on rhetoric, short on rationality, and wrong about just about everything. These are true believers for whom life is a dropped out black and white print, devoid of shades of gray, and nuance is illusion.

Personally, I'm a proud American and I wouldn't freely choose to live anywhere else. I also know that this country has flaws. The U.S. is far from perfect and I'm greatful for people like Chomsky and other knowledgeble professors for pointing this out from time to time. Contrary to what the article implied, most of their arguments are above reproach, which is why the response is rarely logical refutation but virtually always straw man pejoratives. Notice that you never see more than a sentence or two quoted. To do so would open a pandora's box that would leave all these "patriotic" critics stammering and faltering in their transparent attempts to reflexively and absolutely defend the divine kingdom of the United States against all the godless critics that would destroy it. Make no mistake it. If President Bush decided to bomb Canada tomorrow these folks would have an instant justification.

Why do professors "hate America?" Well, since this apparently means why do professors sometimes criticise America (not quite the same thing to some), perhaps it's because they're standing on a higher vantage point than the average uninformed, and almost certainly less intelligent, American getting their daily dose of reality from the corporate mobsters that own the media. I'm greatful for these professors, for they are acting as the sorely needed conscience of America. Here's hoping they continue to be a strong voice for rationality and restraint for a long time to come.

David Wallin - 3/7/2003

I am compiling a list of what is PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT
and would apprciate your input.
I have many statements, but seek more.
I plan to lead a grassroots effort to spread the heart, the reality, and the history of PATRIOTICAL CORRECTNESS

Thank you

David Wallin

David Wallin - 3/7/2003

I am compiling a list of what is PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT
and would apprciate your input.
I have many statements, but seek more.
I plan to lead a grassroots effort to spread the heart, the reality, and the history of PATRIOTICAL CORRECTNESS

Thank you

David Wallin

Steve C - 2/13/2003

I live in England; one of the G7 countries, the 4th largest economy in the world, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. However, I find the USA "scary" because it is so powerful. You can put a man on the Moon, a quarter of a million soldiers in the middle east, you can fly smart bombs down drain pipes! I find you scary, so how do you think the people who live in mud huts find you? Learn to love the world, meet people where they are. Life is too short for the luckiest amongst us, and tragically short for the rest.

Bill Heuisler - 11/27/2002

Mr. Kelly,
Some tips:
1)Computers are a rather new phenomenon, but simply depress the "shift" key, strike the desired letter and, voila, capital letters - or, perhaps you indulge an insecure idiosyncrasy.
2)Historiography means the writing of history. To say, "foner writes about post-soviet historiography" is therefore redundant when referring to my critique of Foner's wistful narrative about his days as a visiting scholar under Gorbachev. Foner was not writing about writing history, he was commenting on his own.
3)Anyone who refers to the "actual historians on hnn" should also be sophisticated enough to observe a causal and associative relationship between the death and misery of millions and the imposition of Marxism throughout the last century.
A quick primer for beginners:
Marxism is Socialism in authoritarian terms. Dialectic is logical argumentation. Marxist Dialectic places history under a template of class struggle, assumes the proletariat is product rather than wellspring and denies all value but utility.
Read more history, Mr. Kelly, there's a lot to learn.
Glad to help, Bill Heuisler

Bob Greene - 11/27/2002

To maxvintage's post,no it is not censorship. Not in the sence the first ammnedment means, Congress shall pass no law does not mean you have a right to a forum. You do not have a right to an audience. You do not have a right to have your opinions published. You do not have a right to a job. You can say what you want and there is no prior restraint. You can publish a newspaper and talk to any group that wishe sto listen to you. Now it is a good idea for people to be encourage to say what they like and accademic freedom is good for a university but that freedom is to encourage discussion not a forum to spout hate and venum. Oh you can still spout your hate and venum and no one will stop you but you have no right to a forum if no one wishes to give you one. I do not have to support opinions I find abhorrent

Don Laird - 11/26/2002

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy. We all know the U.S. did not plan, fund, sponsor, and execute illegal, immoral, torturing and murderous medical experiments involving plutonium on American citizens, many unsuspecting. (Plutonium has no health-related characteristics whatsoever, except to destroy life.) Since we all know that the U.S. federal government did not do so, we are completely different from those who know that the U.S. did do it - those who obviously must hate America.

Similar to Iraq is Colombia, where our military-related and political related presence has nothing to do with oil. If we knew it had something to do with oil, we would be America haters.

There is no federal propaganda and censorship in America, and the mainstream media tell us all that's fit to tell. Hip, hip, hooray for the U.S. media!

Chuck Heisler - 11/25/2002

Chris, I certainly believe in giving Osama and Sadam a "hearing" and after listening, to judge the words and the actions--I wouldn't feel comfortable making a judgement on an enemy without evidence. My point, Chris, is that we should not insulate ourselves from messages that we disagree with--either we argue the point and refute the claim or we accept the conclusion or parts of the conclusion. I don't know what "fascist" rhetoric is but I doubt if any current academic engages in that type of persuasion. The basic lesson is, attack the claim not the claiment. If Pipes is wrong, then make a logically sound rebuttal. We should never fail to engage by running away from the claim and rejecting the messenger. You know that.

Brian Kelly - 11/25/2002

bill h. wonders if eric foner has ever written anything positive about the republican party. his dissertation remains, as most of the actual historians on hnn will know, the best single study of the origins of the republican party. whether it is effusive, uncritical enough for mr. h. is doubtful, i think, as it raises difficult questions about the subsequent evolution of the "party of emancipation".

h.: "show me a positive foner treatment of us history"??? is that what qualifies as _good_ history for you, mr. heuisler? i would think his _reconstruction_ qualifies as good, even brilliant history, as does his "nothing but freedom". and in both he is "positive" about the motivations, intent of a number of historical actors, but less so about others. lousy how the past is complex like that, isn't it?

the essay that foner writes about post-soviet historiography is completely mis-charactrized by heuisler, but i'm not surprised. in it, foner most emphatically does NOT long wistfully for a return to the stalinist school of falsification and censorship (which i am surprised you don't sympathize with, given your support for such an approach in america), but instead points out, perceptively, that in their rush to jettison the crude propaganda of the old school, russians have adopted a similarly crude re-glorification of their pre-stalinist past.

finally, mr. h, would you please explain to me, in a paragraph or two what exactly you mean when you say that "each published work of Dr. Foner uses Marxist dialectic". i'm assuming that is a bad thing, but would like to hear your explanation of the marxist theory of history. past the rhetoric, please: tell us what it is that gets you so upset. maybe then we can help you with what appears to be a very serious affliction indeed.

Bob Greene - 11/25/2002

Jaelle, you know not of what you speak. Your hate filled diatribe full of distortions, half-truths and outright lies reveals that you have no argument to make and no evidence to back up your venom. Your assertion that Dr. Pipes has no knowledge of the Middle East is false. He has a PhD from Harvard in Middle East history. You assertion that he spent no time in the area is also a lie. In fact he lived in the Middle East for several years and reads Arabic. He does not write hate filled diatribes, you are confusing him with your own pathetic postings. He writes carefully reasoned, articles and books on the Middle East. His principal theme that he is exposing of late is that the West has a new enemy, Islamists. He has carefully defined these people as those who would impose the Sharia on a nation, to make that nation subject to that most intolerant of all ideologies, religous fundamentalism. To assert he is intolerant of Islam is contradicted by his repeated assertions that moderate Muslims are those most hurt by the Islamists and we have common cause with them to oppose this threat. Ranting and raving about hate which you practice so well does not contribute to useful debate. If you disagree with Pipes on some point make an argument, give evidence do not just fling invective.

Gus Moner - 11/24/2002

According to you, anyone who disagrees with US policy is guilty of “…rote-ignorance, …mere stupidity and anti-capitalist Marxism”. I, however, doubt any of these people opposing administration policy dislike the USA.
They may well dislike the government’s policies, as surely many disliked the Carter and Clinton administration’s policies. Were all of these people anti-American lemmings then?

Gus Moner - 11/24/2002

Perhaps the premise of the article is erroneous, Mr. Pipes. Whilst many US citizens have been conditioned to dislike Mr. Hussein’s regime in Iraq, once the darling of the US’s anti-Iranian lobby, the perception of danger is not so clear. That is why the UN process is necessary, to verify just what the dangers are and deal with them in an international setting.

Any reasonably informed person would be well aware of this administration’s heavy reliance on former oil executives, from the President on down. Therefore, that reasoning people would question the why and when of all the anti-Iraq rhetoric and efforts seems rather logical and healthy.
There are plenty of like-thinking people who do not teach at universities. All their arguments make some sense, right or wrong. The debate is healthy and vigorous, ultimately good for the nation and the world. Strengthening the role of the UN in dealing with international threats is good for the world to learn to work together, as threats are more ‘global’ in reach now.

Thus, oil, the need for an enemy when the war on terror languishes, avoiding the rule of the jungle, steering clear of becoming an aggressor nation, and demanding clarity before attacking anyone seem good discussion topics. It’s a pity those who favour aggression and imposing the US’s policies on the world cannot tolerate any debate, variant positions and alternative perspectives. It makes all of them seem intolerant and totalitarian.
Singling out university professors seems an uncouth witch hunt. Why is it that opinions that differ form the administration’s are always called un American, cranky, mistaken and are otherwise labelled as despising one’s country?
Perhaps your disregard for debate and other people’s right to air different opinions, your KGB-like desire to control education (adult supervision? standards for media statements by faculty?) are the real threat. They have questionable democratic principles and sound too much like what the regimes you so dislike, Cuba, N Korea, Iraq…… do.
“To resume their civic responsibilities” means what? To parrot the government line? What about the unnamed right-wing, pro-war professors? How will you censor them? What you propose is a dictatorship of thought, censored information and stifled debate. Go live in Iraq if that is what you like.

Chris Murphy - 11/24/2002

And I assume from what you say, Chuck, that you apply the same logic to giving Osama bin Liner and Saddam Hussein a hearing?

Sorry, Chuck, but if I choose not to listen to the likes of Pipes it is because, having read far too much of him already, I believe his fascist rhetoric has no merit at all.

But thanks for listening to me anyway.

David G. Wrone - 11/24/2002

You have been asked to refer me to a post in which I assert a particular piece of information can be found in "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America." You are unable to do so, because the assertion was never made. It is a bit of fancy you've created out of whole cloth. Instead of providing the post, a fairly basic bit of work for most middle schoolers, you resort to insult, which leads me to believe that you no doubt come honestly by your touching faith in public education. Keep trying, though, you might just get it one of these years. Good luck, old boy.

Derek Catsam - 11/23/2002

I think we're probably reaching endgame here. For me his best work stands up as what it is. _Reconstruction_ is the best book in its field. I actually managed to transcend Daddy's mistakes. Or at least I don't have a therapist to tell me otherwise.

Bill Heuisler - 11/23/2002

If you're not already bored to tears, see:
Who Owns History? Rethinking the Past in a Changing World, by Eric Foner (Hill and Wang, 256 pp., $24)
N.B. Chapter titled "The Russians write a new history." Exposes
Dr. Foner's world-view.
So, it's your father's fault? Counseling, Dude?
Best, Bill Heuisler

Derek Catsam - 11/23/2002

I'm always curious what people mean when they say that academics don't exist in the real world. My rent check, gas, water and phone bills seem to get cashed just like everybody else's. I seem to have taxes taken out of my income -- social security too. I read the paper daily, love sports, go and drink beers at a bar, and buy loads of cd's when I can. My car is crappy, but despite my supposedly cushy job, I have bills lingering froma couiple of months ago when I was still a grad student, so I can't get a new car. All of this is to say, who the hell is anybody to priviledge their own experience as being in the "real world" and disparage mine just because I was able to get a job I love, teaching and reading and researching and writing after busting my very real ass to get a very real PhD? The audacity.

Derek Catsam - 11/23/2002

Bill -- Since Foner deals with race, I'm not quite certain how he could do an irredeemably positive treatment without being, well, wrong. "Reconstruction" is very positive toward those who deserve positivity, negative toward those who don't. Historians are not responsible for flag waving when the flag does not deserve to be waved. I agree -- his Story of American Freedom is not his best work, but how one can not admire his ambition on that one? And the fact remains, when it comes to freedom, America has at best a mixed record. And this from someone who'd pop you in the jaw if you called me "anti American" in a bar. Being critical of America does not, in my mind, really have anything to do with being pro- or anti- America. In fact, one can maintain that such criticism is the most American thing possible for those of us who love this country. (As for the Soviet Union, this is not his area of scholarship, and he has not written a lot on it to my knowledge.)
As for your "morphing . . . into discursiveness" statement -- since when are you a jargon user? Should I be expecting your treatise on deconstructing the hermeneutics of anti Americanism soon?
My dad voted for Perot in '96. Doesn't make me a Perot supporter.

David Stanley - 11/23/2002

It is even more self evident that this website is heavily frequented by anti-intellectual gun nuts. Divorced from the ability to think logically, and devoid of historical knowledge, they imagine that our economy today is still based on hunting and gathering.

Chuck Heisler - 11/23/2002

Yowser Chris Murphy! Is this not the way of the left, "I read this conservative comment and I hate conservative comment so I called the commentator a name and will insulate myself from anymore conservative comment by changing to a new liberal site that insulates me from conservative comment"? Too bad that Pipes opinion wasn't on campus Mr. Murphy, you could have just shouted him down and/or otherwise prevented him from expressing ideas that you would rather not confront. Tolerance Chris, tolerance!

Bill Heuisler - 11/23/2002

Mr. Beard,
Read and learn. "From thee great God, we spring, to thee we tend...". De Consolatione Philosophiae, by Boethius.
Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary: Tend - 2)"to have influence toward a specified result; lead or conduce." Their example: "Education tends to refinement." Apt in your case.
Bill Heuisler

Bill Heuisler - 11/23/2002

Mr. Catsam,
But do you nearly always quote Justice Thomas and never disagree with Fanon? Does Dr. Foner ever agree with Republicans on any issue? Morphing discrimination into discursiveness does not alter the obvious. Intelligent humans deduce fact from congruent series of occurences and act or judge accordingly - otherwise we would set our hair on fire in winter and crown our jesters king.
Dr. Foner comes from a family of Marxists (Jack, Phil and Moe); he has referred to himself as neo-Marxist (what ever that means); each published work of Dr. Foner uses Marxist dialectic and he found the Bush Administration's rhetoric on 9/11 as disturbing as the terrorist destruction of the twin towers.
Show me a positive Foner treatement of US history. Show me a negative Foner treatement of Soviet history.
Enough hair-splitting, this guy is definitely a duck.
By the way, did you quote Fanon and Thomas in the same paragraph?
Best wishes, Bill Heuisler

Dave Livingston - 11/23/2002

It is self-evident that Friend Murrah's assessment is accurate, as far as it goes. In addition, academics for the most part live a soft,pampered life in a climate-ccontrolled environment generally in urban locations that tend to insulate them from some of the harsher facets of life.
For instance, recently some Colorado College kids who'd lived in Mongolia a while decided to have a proper Mongolian style cook-out, which entailed the killing of the lamb to be eaten. A few neighbors hit the roof at the killing of the poor animal. One woman actually offered to go to a grocery store to purchase lamb chops so thar rhe animal need not be killed. Divorced from reality she failed yo comprehend that all the meat, fish & fowl she eats comes from creatures that first had to be killed.
It is those such as she, divorced from reality, who object to hunting. More often than not a hunter's kill puts meat on his table, a notion that many urbanites have difficulty in comprehending.
One wonders if such urbanites ever consider from where the leather for their shoes, belts, handbags & whatever come.

Alan Cruz - 11/23/2002

Turn off your TV and read a book instead, Ms. or Mr. Murrah. An American history book preferably. America was not "built on reality". America was captured from its native population by idealists fleeing the realities of oppression, poverty and ignorance on other continents. And for most immigrants to the U.S. in recent centuries, one of their biggest dreams was to educate their children at high quality public schools here. If this reality of history is disappointing to you, and if you can't handle the knowledge, learning and thinking going on at the best universities on the planet, I'm sure there's a place for your talents somewhere in Zimbabwe or Belarus.

Charles Beard - 11/23/2002

Herr Heuisler's views, he says, "tend to individual freedom and responsibility" (by which he presumably means "tend TOWARDS", but he probably attended grammar school some years back). EXCEPT that his brand of freedom apparently does not apply to professors such as Eric Foner whose right to free speech ought to be subject to "adult supervision" (by other adults who successfully completed grammar school, possibly).

As for Heuisler's rhetorical question "why does no one discuss/defend" the professors subject to the wrath of the omnipresent Pipes:

Maybe because Chomsky and Rego, for instance, are not history professors. Or maybe because some posters to this website are interested in history, rather than in using concocted litmus tests to play endless name-calling games.

S. T. Bond - 11/22/2002

Even here in West Virginia, people who study current events like the course of the Bush Administration less than those who simply watch the news or casually read the newspaper. Accepting the nonsense of the press and an administration which puts the private interests of the elite above the best interest of the citizenry and nation is inversley correlated with how much one understands the situation. Where do you find intellegent, well informed people: universities? Furthermore, seriously disliking the present administration is not the same as hating our country.

M. Lee Murrah - 11/22/2002

Academics live in a world of theory and ideals insulated intellectually, economically, and physically from the real world. Theirs is an "open loop" system with no feedback to bring the output back toward the mean. In an unchecked world of theory and ideals, the real world can never measure up. America is a nation built on reality, and its performance has proven the academics' favorite social and economic theoretical constructs to be dead wrong. Not only does America not measure up to theory, it has the unmitigated gall to contradict the learned theorists and idealists.

derek catsam - 11/22/2002

So wait, citing Fanon makes one a Marxist? Wow. Talk about your reductionist simplicity. I have cited Fanon before. I have also quoted Clarence Thomas. By the Heuisler logic, this then makes me a Marxist conservative jurist. Brilliant. Furthermore, I do believe in some of the things you cite Fanon as saying. Wealth does in fact produce inequal power and prerogatives. This does not make me a Marxist. I repeat: This Does Not Make Me a Marxist. Agreeing with someone on certain issues, just because they are a Marxist does not make them one. I agree with some republicans on some issues. It does not make me a republican. I agree with Buthelezi on some questions. It does not make me a member of Inkatha. I stand by my assertion: Foner is not an "anti American Marxist".

Bill Heuisler - 11/22/2002

Foner not a Marxist? Sorry. There must be a more dignified, a more complex term used on campus.
Foner regularly cites Fanon: 1)Violence is the way to liberation among the Third World oppressed. 2)Wealth produces inequal power and prerogatives. 3)Freedom comes from social and political struggles by "those outside the social mainstream".
Those are Marxist ideals.
Eric Foner clearly does not believe the U.S. represents freedom in our modern world.
Are there other labels? Being simplistic is so tiresome.
Bill Heuisler

Derek Catsam - 11/22/2002

Eric Foner is not a "Blame America First Marxist." This is simply not true. It is simplistic labelling, something many who respond to HNN articles are very good at. And believe it or not, America's reprehensible racial past is worth more than a little criticism, which is what Foner does, and ably so. Foner's _Reconstruction_ is a monumental study and certainly has set the standard for Reconstruction studies.

Bill Heuisler - 11/22/2002

Mr. Douglas,
Perhaps hate is the wrong word. Would you prefer dislike? Eric Foner dislikes this country as petty, shameful and nearly always exclusive of a race, a class or a gender. He sees little to admire and much to criticize in the United States.
After reading his his "The Story of American Freedom" I wondered at his seeming inability to give credit for any struggle other than some oppressed minority. But of course, he is a Marxist and sees everything through that dark prism of envy.
Just one example: In a chapter titled, "The Russians Write a New History" he exposes his regret at the fall of the USSR and Gorbachev. He was evidently a guest professor under the Gorbachev regime and described how wonderful Russia was as the Soviets unashamedly shed their Stalinist past while remaining true to Communism. Hypocrisy? Schizophrenia? Blindness?
Mr. Douglas, Dr. Foner's explication of the shifting idea of Freedom is as flawed and incomplete as the template he uses.
He is, after all, a "Blame America First" Marxist.
Best wishes, Bill Heuisler

John Adkins, M.A. - 11/22/2002

As usual the esteemed Mr. Pipes only sees what he wants to see. If American college and university instructors are less willing to be blindly led into war by what is becoming an increasingly untrustworthy government then good for them.

Mr. Pipes must believe that another Middle East "shooting war" will be good for the sale of his pseudo-academic Middle East writings.

I am glad that Mr. Pipes is doing his part to help dumb down the American public by attacking those who are brave enough to speak their mind in defense of freedom. Mr. Pipes, if you are still maintaining your little web "hit list" then feel free to add me to it. I cannot think of prouder company to stand with than those who disagree with you.

Some of us still understand that dissent is the duty of every American when they do not believe our government is doing the right thing. Mr. Pipes would like an America where noone stands up and disagrees - I would not - I have a reading assignment for you Professor, Federalist No. 10 - read it slow - some of the concepts are a bit foreign to you.

John Adkins
Student - University of Kentucky

Scott Jones - 11/22/2002

Provide the full citation including page number the way we learned to do in freshman history class, if you are capable of such basic procedures.

(I doubt there is much real scholarly or journalistic evidence to support your supposition -to what ever degree "hyperbolized"- that American schools are riddled with textbooks saying that Americans are evil).

Joseph Douglas - 11/22/2002

For Pipes and others, like Bill Heuisler, to suggest that Eric Foner hates America, is ludicrous. Then for others to pick up on Pipes's quotation of Foner as evidence of the simple-mindedness of the Academy, is equally invalid.

I do not know Eric Foner personally, but it is clear that he has a better understanding of America's past than either Mr. Pipes or his supporters. His writings on the ideology of the early Republican Party and Reconstruction are anything but simple-minded. They are suble and complex. His book on freedom, "The Story of American Freedom," is marvelous and I highly recommend it. His explication of the shifting idea is without peer. I even suggest Mr. Pipes read it, and then perhaps he can tell us if Eric Foner "hates" the U.S., rather than basing his conclusion on one sentence quotes.

Joseph Douglas

David G. Wrone - 11/22/2002

Please refer me to my post wherein I state that "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" features a quotation about text books espousing the P.C. "America is Evil" line. Do you really equate the use of hyperbole with deception? Methinks the world is full of deceit, if so.

David G. Wrone - 11/22/2002

I think you've mistaken me for someone who's mounting a defense of Pipes on this board. Regardless of the accuracy or lack thereof of Pipes' labeling of the professors as 'American haters,' I simply find it interesting to listen to the caterwauling from the left when its name calling game is turned on them. As I've stated previously, they're quick to blubber about censorship and the dread spirit of McCarthy when so much as a solitary columnist from the New York Post yells 'boo.' But their tactical history - with their fetish for newspaper bonfires and the like - betrays them for the hypocrites that they are. Is that clear and convincing enough for you?

E. Noff - 11/21/2002

"If one disagrees with an African American, he is a racist. If one believes it proper to harvest timber from a forest, he is an environmental rapist. If one disagrees with a woman or a womens' organization, he is a misogynist. And so on."

And if one disagrees with Daniel Pipes one hates America.

"To the left-of-center, "freedom of speech" seems really to mean "freedom to speak so long as you agree with ME."

Shame on Pipes for being so left of center. And how nice of Wrone to clarify matters in such a creative and convicing way.

Scott Jones - 11/21/2002

What is the passage in "Dumbing Down" (about textbooks describing "evil being committed by Americans") that is supposedly being hyperbolized ?

P.S. Webster, New Collegiate Dictionary: "deceive - to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid, to lead astray, to delude."

Bill Heuisler - 11/21/2002

May I take the responsibility? While more traditional Liberal than doctrinaire Conservative, my views tend to individual freedom and responsibility. For instance: Good intentioned government actions have historically been more dangerous to freedom than revolution or foreign enemies.
My answer: Cole and Zinn do not sell as well on the free market as Pipes, Bennet, etc.. Just as Donahue cannot survive, Hardball sinks and most "Liberal" radio talk-shows fail, the audience for the Blame America First arguments of the Left has dwindled sharply since 9/11. BTW, since Pipes mostly quotes Professors in his column, why does no one discuss/defend Gilmore or Fones or Chomsky?
Bill Heuisler

Bill Heuisler - 11/21/2002

Who is dumbing-down public discourse here, Mr. Kelly? Spouting defective history on HNN is both pathetic and embarrassing. We can assume ideological rancor will cause mistakes, but, in attacking Dr. Pipes, you bring ignorance to a new abyss.
You mention history four times.
You are manifestly, abjectly wrong four times.
How can a sentient being deny Democracy in Puerto Rico? In the Phillipines? Most "historians" know of the US-backed Cuban Constituent Assembly of February 21, 1901. Elected Cuban Presidents named Palma, Gomez, Menocal, Zayas and Machado are familiar to most who even dabble in history. Mr. Kelly, you cannot possibly believe US fighting men dropped "ten million tons of bombs" on Vietnam because our pilots enjoyed killing Asian people and fruit bats (or maybe an agenda is showing).
Mr. Kelly, read Noam Chomsky's "World Orders, Old and New"; "Deterring Democracy"; "Rethinking Camelot, JFK the Vietnam War and US political Culture" and then tell HNN Noam Chomsky does not perform his version of history.
Empirical evidence is wasted on the bon-fires of hatred, but there is no other country in the world that attracts as much immigration as our United States. Why is that, Mr. Kelly?
Lastly, you cite the unwashed idiots who loitered in Florence two weeks ago as your font of enlightenment. If you are a College Professor, you affirm and define Dr. Pipes position.
Bill Heuisler

Jason Esposito - 11/21/2002

I think the description of those who "hate America" is apt. There are critics of this country that simply have an emotional dislike for it, its culture, its people. And, their anti-Americanism is essentially a political ideology, which usually is backed up with poor historical research and thin knowledge of American foreign policy and American culture.

Historically, the "hate America" types have not all been from the Left. In 1930s France there was plenty of anti-Americanism that came from the Right. Their critique was based on a general disdain for American capitalism and what they saw as a valueless, tasteless culture. The French Right of the 1930s used America as a worrisome example of what they believed French society was threatening to become as the old order faded and modernity landed.

Since Indian Independence in 1947, the Indian right-wing certainly has not been a consistent friend of America. Pro-Hindu, anti-egalitarianist policies of the right-wing in India, often coincide with an anti-American outlook.

As well, conservativism in the Middle East certainly is anything but pro-west.

I think that it is important to identify that many people dislike American culure for many different reasons. That is why I have no problem with the shorthand "hate America" description. Just like anti-semitism is inevitably a political doctrine which has a universal appeal and many different meanings, anti-Americanism has become a universal political doctrine too. It is seen by plenty of misinformed and maleducated people as a legitimate way of explaining the state of the world and their own particular political positions. It is used as an excuse by dictators and petty, local tyrants to explain to the people they exploit why they must continue to impose on them.

Like this, it is related to anti-semitism and is often used in a "conspiracy theory" that is really a phantom. And just as the Left completely fails to understand the political nature of anti-semitism, it completely fails to understand anti-Americanism and thus, itself.

The frustrations that conservatives feel at American professors who legitimize this opinion is just. A reasoned, scholarly, assessment of say, American policy in Latin America in the 1980s which shows that our policy was inevitably flawed,is one thing. But to condemn it outright, is "hating America." For a truly reasoned assessment of American Foreign Policy in Latin America in the 1980s will show that its major achievement was to put the Soviet Union on the political and diplomatic defensive-the one thing that it was specifically intended to do. And for an American to have any sympathy at all for the Soviet Union and its anti-American propoganda, its anti-American client regimes and movements, I think goes a long way in quantifying what one really believes and wants to believe about their own country.

The Left's typical reaction to this charge, "why are critics of a policy considered "hate America?", is overdone. I think Daniel Pipes is talking about a specific type of academic and a politics that seems to be historically uninformed and emanates from some mysterious "hate America" emotion. Notice, in his article, he does not cite any quotes from historians who, I would hope, would use higher evidentiary standards to substantiate their critique of American foreign policy.

Noam Chomsky, for instance, is not a historian and does not think like one. He is a linguist concerned with the structure of human communication and due to his radical beliefs, taken up with the nature of power in language. His writings on American foreign policy rarely employ the use of documentation from the U.S. government and rarely try to uncover why the decision-makers in the government made the decisions they made based on the context of the information they had at the time. This is the job of the historian.

And to most historians, Chomsky's views just don't wash with the facts.

Inevitably, historians must not only practice a skepticism of governments and the powerful; they must also practice skepticism of political agitators, ideologues and yes, academics. This is all that pipes is saying. His is not a desire to censor. Rather, what he offers is a critique of a powerful institution within American society and modest program of discerning what that power is being used for. This is at heart a democratic sentiment and perfectly understandable.

David G. Wrone - 11/21/2002

"Hyperbole: Exaggeration for effect; not meant to be taken literally. (Ex.: He's as strong as an ox.) New World Dictionary of the American Language (second college edition); p. 690; David B. Guralnik, editor in chief; William Collins Publishers, Inc.: Cleveland, Ohio: 1979.

David G. Wrone - 11/21/2002

As I have stated previously, I disagree with certain aspects of Pipes' solution to leftwing bias in the university. His suggestion that professors be made to adhere to some form of standardized speech code is as repugnant to me as the "hate speech" codes that the left is so quick to recommend as a means of silencing opposition. However, it's a bit more than ironic that in the opinion of some on this board, the words "adult supervision" augur nothing short of wholesale dismemberment of professors' First Amendment freedoms, when members of the non-left are routinely forbidden from conveying THEIR political opinions - and nary a peep out of the Pipes' bashers on the matter. The left always wants it both ways; It demands (rightly) the freedom to demonstrate in favor of slavery reparations, but screams "racist rightwing enslaver!" when clamoring to university officials that a speaker with contrary views be forbidden from even being allowed to present those views. Ad hominem slander is the order of the day. If one supports a war on Iraq, he is a baby killer. If one disagrees with an African American, he is a racist. If one believes it proper to harvest timber from a forest, he is an environmental rapist. If one disagrees with a woman or a womens' organization, he is a misogynist. And so on. To the left-of-center, "freedom of speech" seems really to mean "freedom to speak so long as you agree with ME."

Scott Jones - 11/21/2002

I thought the "black helicopters" were supposed to be from the United Nations, e.g. that organization which is supposed to enforce its resolutions against Iraq and ignore its resolutions against Israel. But, since they are really only "dark green" copters, we may as well drop that issue.

Re colleges and universities: I happen to own a copy of Fussell's "Dumbing Down of America" and an amusing read it was. However, I don't recall anything therein about "educational textbooks distributed in virtually all public schools" telling us that "100 percent of all evil in the world was perpetuated by Americans". Could you cite a page number, maybe ?

Barry Minot - 11/21/2002

"No one's allowed to criticize any subject that YOU have an especial fondness for, eh?" is Pipes' position. Except, instead of "packing up and leaving", or working within the Bill of Rights to "correct the perceived flaws in the particular matter", he wants "adult supervision" to eviserate the first amendment rights of college students and professors.

David G. Wrone - 11/21/2002

In the '80s, the nascent "patriot" movement contained a fair number of folks who pointed to the alleged presence of 'black helicopters' in U.S. airspace to support their claims that America was on the verge of conquest by the United Nations. The helicopters in questions supposedly appeared out of nowhere, hovered menacingly for long periods of time, and were described as bearing no markings and filled with men outfitted with military gear. As you might guess, these claims were not taken seriously. David B. Kopel, "Militarized Law Enforcement: The Drug War's Deadly Fruit," a chapter in his subsequent book "After Prohibition: Adult Alternatives to the Drug War," which was published by the CATO Institute.)

In my own experience, over time, if one dared raise any question about federal policy or programs - particularly a policy or program birthed by a Democratic politician - he was likely to be smeared as a "member of the black helicopter crowd." It became a de facto, argument-ending insult.

There proved to be a bit of problem with the "conspiracy kook" label, however. Black (in some cases, actually a very dark green that renders it difficult to read the vehicles' markings) helicopters DO exist, and HAVE been whirring around America for years as part of the so-called "war on drugs," rather than having been spawned by the U.N.

In the August 17, 2000 edition of the Santa Barbara News-Press, an article detailed a joint "drug interdiction" mission flown by U.S. Marines and local sheriff's deputies. Personnel flew dark colored military helicopters back and forth across the hills of Santa Barbara County in a search of marijuana fields.

On August 29, 2000, Holly Hughes, a Boulder Colorado resident, was in a local park with her two children when a pair of black helicopters descended on her and her family. Hughes related: "...there were no markings. They're totally black, just totally ominous looking. It really scared me. They just kept going in circles and circles for hours. It was a real invasion of privacy." Local journalist Wayne Laugesen later learned that the helicopters belonged to the Colorado National Guard, and were filled with detectives from Boulder's Drug Task Force. (from an article written by Wayne Laugesen and published in the Sept. 7, 2000 edition of Boulder Weekly.)

I relate only two specific examples of 'black helicopter' incidents, but would be happy to track down more for you. The point is, the U.S. military is with increasing frequency joining forces with local police agencies to zip hither and thon over the back yards of American citizens, often times loitering noisily for hours over a particular piece of property as they scan it in the hope of finding the pot field that would allow the ground troops to storm in. According to Kopel's article, this sort of activity was ruled permissable in a court case (Oliver v. United States) that held law enforcement agents can trespass on "open fields" without probable cause or a search warrant. Although mocked and ridiculed, the theory of 'black helicopters' has been shown to be no fanciful pipe dream from the wacky right.

In regard to your queries about public school text books: I infused my remarks with a degree of hyperbole to convey my very serious apprehensions about the ideologically driven curriculum that presently passes for "public education." However, for an indepth look at the current state of the modern American classroom, I would refer you to any number of books on the subject ("The Dumbing Down of America"; "Illiberal Education" and "Who Stole Feminism" to name three.) I would be happy to provide you the names of the authors of these books if you desire them.

Jaelle - 11/21/2002

You raise an excellent point that Pipes and his defenders never answer. Lazy, uninformed writers like Pipes and Emerson get on mainstream, corporate television and radio CONSTANTLY. Their work is published in dozens of mainstream outlets. Ordinary Americans are far more likely to be educated about the world by know-nothings like Pipes than actual questioners and thinkers like Juan Cole or Howard Zinn.

Every time someone points this out, you usually get silence or a reply that avoids the point entirely. None of his defenders ever seem to actually confront this very salient issue head-on.

Oh, and on an entirely different matter -- surely I'm not the only woman on this board?

Jaelle - 11/21/2002

I agree with you up to a point. I don't think Pipes is as harmless as you think. It's his kind of lowlife, myopic, studiously ignorant obscurantist who dominates the corporate media and who advises this administration.

And I can't understand why HNN would publish this guy -- he's not a serious scholar. There are plenty of very conservative historians around with whom I would vehemently disagree but whom I can at least take seriously as credible analysts. A serious scholar doesn't think so reductively, doesn't make broad cartoonish swipes against ANYONE whose views he disagrees with, and certainly doesn't make such childish, grammar school-level arguments like "liberal historians hate America." Sorry to the grammar school kids out there, you're all a lot smarter than this imbecile is. He's so uninformed, sloppy and thoroughly lazy in all his writing.

So here's my summation of Pipes' "intellectual" beliefs:

To condemn US foreign policy based on a genuine interest in its effects on people whom it targets is the same thing as "hating America."

To dissent against the Bush administration is to "hate America."

To strongly oppose US military aid to Israel is not only to "hate America" but also to "hate Jews." (Those of us who oppose such aid ALSO oppose all military aid to anyone).

To write diatribes of hate against Islam and Arabs (based not on any genuine research, education or travel experience in Arab and Islamic countries) is not at all to "hate Arabs" or "hate Muslims." How anyone can take this guys illogical meanderings on Islam and the Arab world is beyond me since he's spent absolutely no time in the region nor made little attempt at studying the region's history (except for the little bits that he likes to use for his arguments).

To be loyal to the vision of the founding fathers of a government that "does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy" (excuse the imprecise quote) or make excessively strong attachments to one or more states, a vision that called for a weak presidency and a strong Congress (something this country lost years ago) is to "hate America."

To believe in the most original of American concepts--that citizens of democracies must at all times be vigilant of their elected representatives, make them accountable, constantly ask difficult questions, refuse to take simplistic platitudes, NEVER be complacent about those in power--is to "hate America."

To be a good little dog wagging its tail believing in the inherent trustworthiness and saintly goodness of our leaders and believing everything we're told is to "love America."

Pipes is a loathsome little creature totally opposed to the genuine spirit of the United States. People like him of course have many followers because ignorance, obscurantism, moral hypocrisy, sloppy thinking and hatred always attract many loyal followers.

David G. Wrone - 11/21/2002

I wonder: If you were to express fault with some aspect of American society - ANY aspect; just choose one - how seriously would you take my suggestion that rather than working to correct the perceived flaws in the particular matter, you just pack up and leave the country? No one's allowed to criticize any subject that YOU have an especial fondness for, eh? Yeah, love it or leave it, baby!

v steffel - 11/21/2002

Isn't this a democracy in which 'everyman' has a right to an opinion? How many times have the political specialists been wrong politically?

What is the role of faculty? Didn't Jesus answer questions with questions?

Does questioning mean that one hates America? Does questioning mean that one is unAmerican?
Does questioning mean that one is unpatriotic?

What constitutes love of country and patriotism?

Brian Kelly - 11/21/2002

Mr. Heuisler believes, for reasons known only to himself, that my objections to Daniel Pipes' calls for censorship and witch-hunting in academia are motivated by "uninformed guilt". I am not nearly as uninformed as his own post shows him to be (Chomsky an historian? The US fostered democracy in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines? Dropped 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam to "defend others"? Ludicrous, all of it, confirming everything I said in my post about corporate-imposed ignorance in America). And I would not hold the generous, but generally uninformed American people at fault for the crimes carried out in their name by successive American administrations. So no guilt here either.

Is it true, as he writes, that "the United States is what all other countries and peoples aspire to," that it is "last great hope for freedom on this despot-plagued planet?" I think not, and I'm pretty sure the empirical evidence would bear me out on this. We might start by examining how these 'despots' came to power, and we would find, I think, that vey many of them did so with the aid or blessing of the American government. But I will leave it up to HNN readers to make up their own minds.

"Why would a man named Kelly...accuse his own free country of 'crimes' and of 'pulling down the rest of the world to our level'," Heuisler asks. I'm not sure what my name has to do with it. Except, of course, that the Irish have a long history of frustrating imperialist ambitions. Losers? Often, but at least they've been on the right side.

As for 'pulling down the rest of the world to our level', readers will note that I used this in a specific context: I was drawing attention to the Bush Administration's heavily-financed plans, now publicly acknowledged, to buy journalists and spread disinformation in the European and world media to counter rising "anti-Americanism" (the 1 million who marched in Florence two weeks ago against the impending war with Iraq are apparently not yet convinced that the Bush Administration represents 'the last great hope for freedom' etc.). If successful, the result will be a dumbing-down of public discourse, along lines more amenable to Msrs. Bush, Pipes and Heuisler.

Finally, I have a simple and democratic suggestion as to how we might resolve Mr. Pipes' concerns that the American people are being led astray by academic historians. I propose that he arrange a debate on the relevant issues between himself and one of the historians whose perspective he finds so objectionable, and that the debate be aired on a major television network during primetime. Surely these are issues about which the American people have a right to be informed. I have enough faith in the American people to believe that in such a scenario Pipes would be laughed out of town.

george beres - 11/21/2002

Mr. Pipes' suggestion of a monitering kind of supervision of outspoken college professors is misdirected. As I have written, and will continue to write for publication, what needs monitering is the way Zionist donations to political candidates (in massive doses) have dictated U.S. foreign poicy in the Middle East. What they do is legal in our anachrronistic system. Tobacco, major corporations and Christian fundamentalists are among others who also do it. It is time this so-called monetary self-expression be made illegal. I am not anti-Judaic, though I assume Pipes would so label me. It is worth it to bring attention to how our government is held captive in the Middle East by Zionist influence.

Chris Murphy - 11/21/2002

Let's face it: whatever "we" say, no matter the evidence, no matter the logic, Daniel Pipes will never read it, leave alone take any notice. He's probably onto his next Stir right now.

What's more, those who support him, having a similar unashamable dislike of liberals, will also take no notice of what "we" say.

Therefore ... why say it at all? Responding to Pipes' weekly, boring diatribes only helps him to reserve unwarranted column inches in HNN. Ignore the little man and he will go away.

And if HNN continues to publish his fascist nonsense, then do as I intend doing: unsubscribe. That may get the Network thinking.

By the way, may I suggest just one other -- Australian -- site of interest. Try "The Brisbane Line" http://www.brisinst.org.au/brisline/

But I'm sure there are many, many others.

Chris Murphy

No Thanks to Adult Supervision - 11/21/2002

And Daniel Pipes Appoints Himself The Adult

Fred Ferrel - 11/20/2002

What do you expect from HNN
(= Hopelessly Non-historical Nonsense) ?

Tom Kellum - 11/20/2002

BINGO! I'm not a long-time reader of HNN, but I've been here enough to be very surprised that such blatant blather is considered worthy of publication on this site.

Mr. Pipes's "article" could just as easily have been written by one of Rush Limbaugh's ghost writers. And for all I know, maybe it was.

The more distressing surprise is how many of my fellow Americans embrace extremist right-wing views that some argue are actually UNAmerican. These people really do come across as though they would have been comfortable in some of the countries we've been at war with in our not too distant past. It's very shocking how rapid the plutocracy has moved from judicial coup to passing laws that ignore our historical 1st, 4th, and other Constitutional rights.

What gives some of us a little hope is what happens on the rare occasion when one has the opportunity to have a dialogue with some of those folks. I've yet to have one be able to defend their radical views. All they can do is fall back on bromides and more cheap shots about the Clintons.

Why do so many conservative Americans hate democracy?

David Durchaus - 11/20/2002

A short reply re David Wrone's apprehensions:

There are long lines of foreigners (even post 9-11) eager to learn and be educated at America's world-class universities. If you are afraid of your son being exposed to ideas contrary to your own, then by all means send him somewhere else, to major in "Plumed Hat" studies in Mexico or whatever. Leave America's halls of education for those who appreciate our intellectual and scientific achievements and the academic freedom which underpins them.

Scott Jones - 11/20/2002

Would you care to provide a bit of substantiation for your interesting remarks about black helicopters (really black?) and "educational textbooks distributed in virtually all public schools...that tell us all about how 100 percent of all evil in the world was perpetuated by Americans, or at least white male Americans" ?

I don't recall reading of such matters recently. Maybe because I tend to patronize "leftwing" and "politically correct" periodicals such as "Wall Street Journal" and "Economist" ?

Since we are all posing questions left and right here, how about addressing Barry Minot's from earlier in this thread: Why can't Daniel Pipes present his gripes about some university professors by in the normal calm and rational manner we historians (usually) espouse ? Why does he have to call instead for his intellectual adversaries to be intimidated and silenced ?

Robert Entenmann - 11/20/2002

Why does Daniel Pipes equate criticism of U.S. foreign policy with "hating" or "despising" America?
Why do we pay attention to such nonsense?

David G. Wrone - 11/20/2002

Many of the original 'black chopper' folks are busy tapping out internet discussion board messages about the inherent evil of Victoria's Secret's latest television program. I am entirely serious. Unwittingly, they assume positions that often place them squarely in the front ranks with many of their ideological opposites. (For instance, the religious right never quite grasps that in their knee-jerk railings against "pornography," they strive for the same goal as that pursued by N.O.W. types when that latter group grouses about "porn's objectification of women." Which is to say, if both groups had their way, Playboy would go the way of the wooly mammoth.)

One can see the cognitive disonance in many conservatives' opinion of urine tests, roadside "safety checkpoints" and the like. This is the "if ya got nothun' ta hide" crowd. One minute they proudly proclaim themselves modern patriots and the last line of liberty's last stand against the far left, and yet they see nothing untoward about forcing someone to perform an intimate bodily function merely because the individual has the audacity to seek work. "Hey, if you got nothun' ta hide, ya got nothun' to worry about. What are you, some kind of crazy dope eater?," they say, oblivious to the greater statement made by the warm dixie cup about personal liberty. To them, the Clinton-era BATF was barely more tolerable than Roehm's storm troopers, and yet they think it perfectly acceptable for law enforcement agents to stop and interrogate - without the slimmest splinter of probable cause or reasonable suspicion - any and all motorists on a particular road or street. This is the war on terror in full bloom. I have no answer for you in regard to the great dilemma of rallying troops of all political stripes to view policies not through an ideological lens, but through the lens of "reality."

CDunn - 11/20/2002

This was supposed to post below RE:Actually, yes.

Couldn't see it the first time, so I pushed submit again.

Wow, I feel like such a bright light today.

CDunn - 11/20/2002

were are the black helicopter people now? It seems like the vast majority of the people warning that there was a problem when it was Clinton in charge, are silent now.

Any ideas on what to do though? All of the checks and balances are being deconstructed. There has been court verdict after verdict saying that the Justice Department has gone to far--but they've just been ignored. The Soviet/Russian technique of ignoring the verdict and trying again, until they can get a judge to rule the way they want.

BTW I do hear what you are saying--though, I think if you look carefully, you will find the same behavior and attitudes on both sides of the spectrum--people, ultimately are people--and there are so many of them, it's not that hard to find multiple examples of any activity.

CDunn - 11/20/2002

were are the black helicopter people now? It seems like the vast majority of the people warning that there was a problem when it was Clinton in charge, are silent now.

Any ideas on what to do though? All of the checks and balances are being deconstructed. There has been court verdict after verdict saying that the Justice Department has gone to far--but they've just been ignored. The Soviet/Russian technique of ignoring the verdict and trying again, until they can get a judge to rule the way they want.

BTW I do hear what you are saying--though, I think if you look carefully, you will find the same behavior and attitudes on both sides of the spectrum--people, ultimately are people--and there are so many of them, it's not that hard to find multiple examples of any activity.

David G. Wrone - 11/20/2002

Not at all ('should we not talk about it?'). Talk to we all stink to high heavens of cough drops and coffee. I've just found that rarely when one encounters an individual quick to rap Bush does that individual remember anything at all about the Clinton era. Generally, I hear prattle about alleged "prosperity" and nothing about "Chinese People's Liberation Army campaign contributions" or "children burned to death to save them." Do you recall all the ridicule heaped on the so-called Black Helicopter Crowd? It was easy to make fun of these folks. Black helicopters? Come on! Turns out there wasn't a damned thing fanciful or imagined about 'em. Much like the black "Clear and Present Danger" SUVs you discuss.

CDunn - 11/20/2002

My, you are one for making grand assumptions aren't you? It pissed me off just as much under Clinton. Wasn't the first public viewing of the midnight use of Black Marias at Elian's house?

So, your view is that since this encroachment on freedom has been going on for a period of years (and MASSIVELY accelerated in the last 2 years) we shouldn't talk about it, shouldn't shout about it, shouldn't start working together to stop it?

No, far more important to purge the Universities of dissenting or not patriotic enough voices.

David G. Wrone - 11/20/2002

Your concern for civil liberties now that a Republican is in office is touching. Where did you stand when the Clinton crew illegally obtained congressmembers' FBI files and copied same? What's your position on the Clintons' bald use of the I.R.S. to punish their political opponents? Maybe Clinton's use of the pharmacy factory/janitor killing missiles to distract us from his fondness for oral sex stirred a little bit of outrage. Where do you stand on the blatant "deconstruction" that now passes as objective fact in "educational textbooks" distributed in virtually all public schools? (You know: the books that tell us all about how 100 percent of all evil in the world was perpetuated by Americans, or at least white male Americans.) Did you experience any sort of regret when the Davidians were burned alive? Maybe not. After all, they WERE gun nuts and all.

I am no fan of much of what the Bush administration is currently pursuing under the guise of "the war on terror." I label it for what it is: a blatant effort to assert more and more control over the sheep. Can you say the same when reviewing the eight years of Clinton's mayhem?

CDunn - 11/20/2002

Under Mark House's post.

David G. Wrone - 11/20/2002

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the subject of civility. Unfortunately, this is a commodity rarely seen when the university left reacts to its ideological counterparts. Think about it. When was the last time a group of young Republicans literally ran a leftist speaker off the stage or unleashed such a sustained, pre-planned ad hominem attack that the speaker was effectively precluded from delivering his remarks? When was the last time a group of young conservatives, their ranks stiffened by the presence of a small but well-known group of instructors, reacted to a Republican-bashing editorial by summarily seizing all copies of the paper and then burning them before marching on the newsroom to demand the editor's head? The answer is "never." Yet I can cite several incidents exactly as described that were perpetuated by the university's left wing in recent years. Not only do college president types rarely respond to the Brownshirts in its student ranks with criticism, very often they reward the offending groups with pledges to form "diversity sensitivity" task forces, construct them separate student centers and the like. Straight out of the Mao handbook. Typically, ANY form of criticism from ANY quarter is met with self-righteous accusations from the little fascists about the re-emergence of McCarthy. In other words, if you punch me in the mouth and I react by telling you that it's inappropriate to punch people in the mouth, you would accuse me of mounting a McCartyite witch hunt or of trying to thwart your freedom of expression.

I have no trouble with an opinion that differs from mine. You are as free as I to evaluate the evidence and form your personal overview of events. What does trouble me is that roughly 90 to 95 percent of your peers tend to hold very similar philosophies on particular subjects. In their world, America is compared not to an actual country, but to an ideal (i.e. the "perfect" society" that has never and can never exist). I am weary of hearing about our country's "40 million uninsured" from people who look blankly at me when I query them on Stalin's starvation of the Kulaks. Or Mao's millions of victims. Or the gulag system. Or Pol Pot's version of paradise. Our sins are forever held up as "proof" of the inherent evil of our society, while the left's pets are never subjected to the same investigation. To them, 40 million people without full dental insurance are far more damning than 7 million Russian farmers deliberately starved to death in the name of Stalin's modernization.

I do not wish for my son to be force fed left-wing propoganda and to be subjected to various forms of "correction" were he to express a contrary opinion. This is the modern American university system. And there is nothing civil about it.

CDunn - 11/20/2002

The Top 10 ways we've brought the Soviet Union home to us

1. We've recreated Stalin's midnight raids in Black Marias (big black vans, almost as intimidating as the new big black SUV's being used) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A30047-2002Oct1¬Found=true Those swept up in the raids don't go into the criminal justice system because of:

2. The existance of a second 'legal' system where politicians have the final say over courts, and the accused have no rights at all.

3. The government actively working to control and manipulate data for their advantage (eg the recent purging of the Department of Education's databases to remove all pre-Bush information, the deletion of information supporting the concepts of Global Warming, the forced rewriting of studies if the result doesn't equal the President's expectations)

4. Party loyalty test for government workers thoguh the active steps taken to force out career civil servants or specialists and replace them with individuals that support the Administrations political views. (As seen at the HHS http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/0,,SB1036965891504820188,00.html , Corp of Engineers, Treasury Department, EPA, etc. )

5. Government pressure to promote positive press stories meaning that most adults interested in knowing what is actually going on in the US have to read non US sources (we've seen the administration punishing journalists that even slightly criticize administration policies)

6. The suppression of films critical of the US (eg The Quiet American http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0060ZU or 11/09/01 http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert22.html

7. The government taking an active role in the creation of entertainment TV (http://events.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-TV-X!ArticleDetail-52632,00.html )

8. We are mirroring the Soviet's belief that the way they live, despite its faults, is the best way to live--so good, that it's a worthy cause to bring it to the rest of the world, even if that means using force to do so.

9. The KGB was made up of departments including border patrol, immigration, secret service, surveillance: domestic and international, controlling dissent. Sounds familiar--Bush is soon going to stick on his private Domestic Surveillance officers, ones only answerable to him, no doubt.

10.The creation of a 'your documents are not in order' society by giving the police the right to stop anyone on the suspician of being a foreignor, and the right to arrest them if they can't prove legal residence. The massive increase in the use of random roadblocks in areas 100 miles from any border. The decision that it is legal for police to take into custody individuals without proper identification on them (as happened to a bicyclist).

maxvintage - 11/20/2002

Sure, parents should be involved and knowing about what their kids are learning and what their dollars are paying for--I plan to be, if my kid ever makes it to college. I never defended campus "correct speech" codes, and nor would I, though I think civility should be encouraged at all times and we have a duty to teach kids to consider the effect their actions have.

It's the lumping and stereotyping that bug me. I've spent many years studying American history as seriously, and in as much depth, as I can. I think there's much to criticize and much to praise. I've come to some conclusions that maybe you disagree with--fine. My conclusions are not out of hating America, but rather out of loving America, and fearing for its place in the world. It's unreasonable to call all disagreement "hating America"--unreasonable, and a bullying tactic; a blunt instrument in a moment when we would all be better served by precision.

David G. Wrone - 11/20/2002

Ahhh, yesssss, America the Bad. America the Evil. America the Great Satan. Oppressors of all the world. Enslaved African Americans. Destroyed the Native Americans. Builder of the SUV. All hail the black heart that is the U.S.A.

I realize it is politically incorrect to point such things out, but in warfare, victors typically dictate the terms of surrender. So Mexico got whipped in '48 and we obtained a good deal of their land. That's the way it works. Must we grovel on our knees and beg forgiveness for having won a war? Perhaps we could then ponder whether New Mexico would be better off today had Santa Anna not had his plumed hat handed to him. How many New Mexicans died trying to illegally enter Mexico last year, anyway? I seem to have misplaced the figures on that.

Of course, unlike most other nations of history, we tend to rebuild our enemies, rather than transform them into vast camps of forced labor. I submit Germany and Japan as Exhibits A and B. But I'll bet those don't count. Reflects too positively on us, right?

David G. Wrone - 11/20/2002

The author's suggestion that colleges "establish standards for media statements by faculty" stinks faintly of the very same strain of totalitarianism that I see regularly in the ranks of America's professor class. As a still somewhat free people, we have no business concocting "acceptable speech" codes as a means of corraling all and sundry into the same Marxist barn. I'll leave that to the left to pursue. (Witness Harvard's current contemplation of a speech code that would for all intents and purposes "outlaw" anyone from saying something that might make a non-white male feel bad.)

You've stated that because the quoted professors' remarks were taken "out of context," you're hesitant to pin an America Hater button on them. Fair enough. But I am reminded of the now infamous Peter Kirstein memo - sent from the St. Xavier History professor to an air force cadet who sought Kirstein's advice. In his response, the professor - whose web page devotes an entire page to the grave site of Karl Marx - refers to the cadet personally or the military in general in the following terms: "You are worse than the snipers;" "cowards;" "you and your aggressive baby killing tactics;" "reign [sic] death and destruction upon nonwhites people." Now, granted, all of these statements are "taken out of context" from Kirstein's diabolically furious memo. But would anyone seriously doubt that this is a man who despises the United States military? Of course not.

Is it REALLY "America hating" (as you assert) for someone to suggest that students' parents take a more active role in understanding that their $100,000 is paying more for a far left re-education camp than an ostensibly "liberal" college eduation? Is it REALLY an "egregious attack on civil liberties" to demand more from higher education than the rote group-think that instructs students to view their country as little better than a hog lot?

Hans Vought - 11/20/2002

While Daniel Pipes may be guilty of exaggeration, he raises a legitimate issue in the strong liberal bias of many college professors. Part of the answer lies in the fact that the generation who came of age during the 1960s and learned to be extremely distrustful of the U.S. government now have tenure and control their departments. Younger scholars, desperate to find and hold jobs in a tighter-than-tight job market, will not dare contradict publicly the liberal views of those who hold power over them.

maxvintage - 11/20/2002

"Only the government can censor." Hmm. OK, let's assume for a second that's actually true, even though it isn't. Suppose I'm teaching at a state university, and the board of trustees--appointed by the state goverment, and acting on its behalf--embarks on a program of "supervision" and forbids or sharply discourages the expression of certain opinions. would that not be both A: exactly what Pipes is calling for, and B: censorship?

Now suppose for a moment you are tenured at a PRIVATE, non government university, and that the terms of your promotion to tenure specify that you are entitled to freedom of speech in the classroom. Let's say you are a physicist, and you are arguing about some pet theory of yours, like the fact that all leftists hate america. Then the University administration steps in and says "we are going to put you under adult supervision because your speech is inappropriate."

If that isn't censorship, what is it?

Now try for a moment to apply this example to what Pipes is calling for. See? It's a call for censorship

maxvintage - 11/20/2002

Well I didn't actually do any of the things your reply accusses me of, so I can't actually respond to it. I certainly haven't called for censoring anyone's opinions, or convening panels to "supervise" the speech of those I disagree with.

It's not that the article "identifies them and their politics for what they are," it's that it then calls for censoring their speech. I still have doubts that you can accurately describe an entire point of view as "America-hating" from two sentences, taken out of context, but I suppose if you can make such broad generalizations about "the left" then you can condem someone on the basis of one or two sentences, taken out of context.

Ronald Dale Karr - 11/20/2002

"The US? After investing Mexico City we withdrew."

But then we annexed 1/3 of Mexico!

"After conquering Spanish possessions we fostered Democracy and set them free."

Sure, after killing thousands of Phillipine rebels who wanted to be free right away. In the end, it took us nearly 50 years to get around to freeing the Phillipines, despite our promises in 1898. I don't think most folks familiar with the post-U.S. history of either the Phillipines or Cuba would describe either country as enjoying democracy. With the obvious exception of Castro, the dictators who usually ruled the Phillipines or Cuba generally enjoyed U.S. backing.

"The United States is what all other countries and peoples aspire to."

ALL countries? ALL peoples? Then where are the terrorists coming from? This dillusion that we are universally admired is as foolish (and perhaps even more dangerous)as the view of some that we are universally loathed. Do you really believe this applies to the Middle East? (Even Israel, I suspect, would balk at U.S.-style separation of church & state.)

David G. Wrone - 11/20/2002

Curious how those on the left are always so quick to holler "censorship" when someone dares simply to identify them and their politics for what they are. I wonder how enthusiastically the quoted professors embrace the notion of "freedom of speech and expression" when confronted by that rarest of rare birds, the campus conservative. We've seen repeatedly what happens when heresy erupts, and the non-left is given its pittance. "Offending" newspapers are seized and burned (Brownshirts, stand up and take a bow!), newsrooms besieged by a mob of "Embrace Tolerance As Long As You Agree With Exactly Everything I Think" types, speakers are screamed off-stage (when they actually are allowed to speak at all) and the old McCarthy boegyman is unearthed when the victims offer even the lamest of resistance. The author of this piece had the audacity to suggest that rather than sitting on our hands while the university elite turkey bastes their America Worst bile into the minds of our 19-year-olds, we perhaps hold them to account for what typically amounts to mainline mendacity shabbily masked as "intellectual discourse." And for this, you would swiftly dispatch the messenger back to Planet Mute, or at least slap a hate speech violation on his primitive brow while huzzahing your epic blow for the First Amendment with a "Divest in Isreal" rally in Berkeley.

maxvintage - 11/20/2002

Here we have a few sentences, take down out of context, to prove that "professors hate america" and that their opinions should be regulated and repressed, I have no idea if the professors mentioned "hate america." Chomsky's opinions in this matter are well known, but the others are not, at least to me. I'm unwilling to endorse the unconstitutional suppression of someone's right to free speech based on a few lines taken out of context with partisan intent. Isn't that what some of you are rightly mad at Bellesiles for doing?

Speaking for myself, I've thought about this iraq invasion a lot, and I oppose for several reasons, all closely related to my understanding of American history. This conclusion is not, in my opinion, an "america-hating" conclusion. Rather it stems from love of America and a desire to see the nation survive, prosper, and live closer to the "better angels of [its] nature." Sometimes this semester I have made comparisons to the political climate in such and such and era, and the political climate today. It seems to me that I actually have a responsibility to do that--otherwise history is just sealed off from utility in the present.

Perhaps you don't agree about the Iraq invasion. But look at it this way--supppose my understanding of history had led me to conclude that the Iraq invasion was a great idea, and I shared that with my class. Would you then be arguing that "adult supervision" was required to prevent me from expressing these opinions?

The Pipes piece is an egregious attack on civil liberties and the roght of those we disagree with to speak their opinions freely. It calls for supression of dissent. It's offensive to American politcal liberties and traditions, and in that sense is itself "America-hating."

Mark House - 11/20/2002

This is FUNNY! Are you a writer for Letterman or something?

Mark House - 11/20/2002

The correct answer is that Leftist identify with victims. In their worldview victims can do no wrong and any wrong that a victim does is not the fault of the victim, but rather, is really the fault of the oppressor.

Hence, they side with Iraq, despite the glaring record on human rights and threat to their own country. Hence, they side with the Palestinians, whose record on human rights they would find deplorable except through the lense of victimology, against the Israelis who have perhaps the most progressive government on these issues in the world.

It carries over to domestic policy also. Minorities can do no wrong and their "faults" are really caused by the oppressors, white Americans, white American males to be more specific.

There is no convincing them that "victimhood" does not mitigate any of these negatives. Therefore, their policy "solutions" never incorporate looking at the real problems, but rather look to find oppressors and punish them to the betterment of the perceived victims.

Bill Heuisler - 11/19/2002

Mr Kelly, empty opinions do not win arguments. Where is that history you say you crave? Have you any historical facts?
You write: "Understandably, historians see striking parallels between the "war on terror" and a long and bloody history of American imperialism around the world."
What historians? Marcuse? Genovese? Chomsky? Marxist envy and class hatred is their history - the failed history of losers.
The US? After investing Mexico City we withdrew. After conquering Spanish possessions we fostered Democracy and set them free. We fought WWI for unselfish reasons. After winning WWII we rebuilt our foes. Korea and Vietnam were fought to defend others. Bosnia and Kosovo were actions to defend muslims. Finally, was 9/11 a fever-dream in your diminutive universe? Yes, we have thrown our weight around, but mostly in the name of freedom. The United States is what all other countries and peoples aspire to. We are the last great hope for freedom on this despot-plagued planet.
Why would a man named Kelly - whose ancestors most probably fled here for freedom - accuse his own free country of "crimes" and of "pulling down the rest of the world to our level"? My advice?
Take your uninformed guilt someplace better.
But you continue:
"...indeed it is difficult to imagine that any educated person who was not committed mateially (sic) or ideologically to "full spectrum dominance" and such like could see things in any other light."
Any educated person? This rubbish is "substantive discussion"? Do you know anything at all about the world? About the United States? Before you talk down to contributors at HNN you might learn how to discuss your country with facts and reason rather than baseless, self-important puffery.
Bill Heuisler

Brian Kelly - 11/19/2002

Pipe's petulant rant is correct in one respect: large numbers of intellectuals in the United States, and more in Europe and beyond, view the "crusade" which he and the Bush administration are leading us into with deep cynicism. Understandably, historians see striking parallels between the "war on terror" and a long and bloody history of American imperialism around the world. None of that is surprising, in my view: indeed it is difficult to imagine that any educated person who was not committed mateially or ideologically to "full spectrum dominance" and such like could see things in any other light. What we should question, and what Mr Pipes might want to explain for us, is why this important segment of informed American opinion never seems to find its way into corporate-filtered public discourse--ie on primetime television and air, into newsprint in the op-ed columns of the major urban dailies, etc. One of the very many striking contradictions in modern American "democracy" is the discrepancy between a rhetorial commitment to free speech, freedom of the press, etc. and the extremely narrow parameters of public discourse, particularly in the "news". In reality, I believe, Americans have less access to unfettered news and opinion about the events going on around them--and the crimes being committed in their name--than anyone else in the industrial world, and very many people in the developing world. Pipes would obviously like to keep things that way. The State Department has recently embarked upon a heavily-funded project of disinformation etc. which aims, not at raising American knowledge/consciousness, but at pulling down the rest of the world to our level, a project that Pipes no doubt supports. HNN should not oblige them, and would be better off hosting substantive discussions involving historians--amateur and professional--with something more than an ideological axe to grind. Calls for witchunting should be barred, in my view, and Pipes' pathetic missive clearly falls into that category.

CDunn - 11/19/2002

The conservatives, who ironically hated the Soviet's the most, are rushing full speed to recast America in it's image.

They've succeeded in intimidating the press enough that over the last year the major news sources seem to openly ape Pravda in their attempts to support the government's slant on everything. Increasingly, the only way to find out what is going on in the US is to read non-US sources.

Now they are going after the universities--they would like them to be like the Soviet universities, only teaching the pro-government slant. The campaign against the media hasn't served the country well, this campaign against the universities is going to mirror that.

Add to that the work to recreate the KGB department by department including the citizen snitches.

Hmmmm let's see, we already have the Black Maria's conducting midnight raids on potential enemies of the people (complete with the framework to keep the people disappeared completly away from any chance to prove their innocence) We have the willingness of a single party to punish and reward those who don't toe the line.

It would be really funny that the conservatives are doing so much to make America a mirror of the place they hated the most--if it weren't so dang depressing.

Barry Minot - 11/19/2002

If Daniel Pipes is not trying to intimidate and censor professors what is the meaning of this statement ? :

"The time has come for adult supervision of the faculty and administrators at many American campuses".

Who will appoint and supervise these "adult supervisors" ?

Will all "faculty and administrators" be subject to this supervision, or just those targeted by Pipes and his thought police ?

Who will chose which campuses are part of the "many" to fall under this new McCarthyist suppresion ?

Haven't we had enough of this unconstitutional, anti-American, demagoguery from Pipes on this website already ? Can't Pipes make his statements and present his ideas the way normal law-abiding citizens do in a democracy of civil rights ? Can’t we have historical articles instead of his repetitive witch hunting ?

Bob Greene - 11/18/2002

Here we go again is right.Thornton spreads the same nonsence that Pipes is calling for censorship. Only the government can censor. Pipes calls for differing views, for pro American views to be on campus. I wonder if the knee-jerk Pipes bashers even bother to read his articles or do they just see his name and spew out their usual distorions, half-truths, and outright lies

Matthew Thornton - 11/18/2002

Here we go again. Daniel Pipes, who must be a board member of HNN (why else would they have his ahistorical incitements here week after week ?), presents another round of his predictable hate-laced calls for censorship. This week, instead of the usual all-purpose Islamic Bogeyman, it's academic freedom he is focused on. Pipes, whose cries of wolf are typically followed with appeals to fear and loathing, now attacks American professors directly for THEIR supposed hatred. The real problem with them, of course, is that their "hatred" is politically incorrect within the Pipesian world wherein the U.S. must do its utmost to mimic Ariel Sharon's Israel.

Bill Heuisler - 11/18/2002

Few in The Groves will point out doctrinaire stupidity because it's not politically correct to be judgmental. So, by tolerating fools, our Academe appears fatuous and ineffectual.
Iraq? Chomsky says it's about oil. Rego applies the butt-kicking rule. Foner mentions the rule of the jungle and cites Imperial Japan. Gilmore quotes Pogo and calls the US an aggressor nation.
Such cartoon-like simplicity, such sophomoric chutzpah. Only in America's colleges could this nonsense go unmocked. But this rote-ignorance from modern academics is ubiquitous, embarrassing and reflects poorly on our finest institutions.
So, why Chomsky? Why Gilmore? It's insufficient, ineffective and naive to assign mere stupidity. In most things, truth can be found in motivation. Why hate America? No, better question: What's different about the US?
Freedom, success and capitalism are defining issues between Third World and First - between lender and debtor nations. Given these distinctions, which attribute is abjured by the eggheads? Well, freedom is their theater and success is the stage they inhabit, so the only thing left to loathe here is Capitalism. Free markets are innately unfair to the proletariat, you see.
Who will bet the common denominator among these foolish lemmings is their Marxism? Stupidity with purpose, how radically chic.
Bill Heuisler